Author Archives: Jacob Fortin

Sex scandal at Creation Museum

Posted on by
Reply

So, the Creation Museum, still so new to the world, is already getting embroiled in a sex scandal. An actor who appeared as Adam in a video the museum uses to help tell their story of how the universe was created, also had a little risqué website on the side. The site shows some rather graphic photos and promotes a ‘free love’ attitude. The horror. This, of course, has gotten the officials at the Museum all hot and bothered, and not in a way their wives will appreciate. They’ve announced an investigation and have noted on their website that the actor’s actions do not match the morals or values they wish to communicate with the museum. They’ve also taken down the video.

Certainly, the museum has every right to be a little shocked at the behaviour of the actor. They have the right to openly criticize the man and the website he appears on. What doesn’t make sense is why they took down the video. Mr. Linden didn’t promote or make mention of the site in it. Indeed, he is a professional actor who played the role he was offered. The actor freely admits that while he isn’t Adam off-screen, that has nothing to do with how he performs in the video itself.

So what is the problem for the Museum? It seems they cannot fathom the idea the man they hired to play Adam was not of the highest moral caliber. What’s more, they’ve made issues of something that has nothing to do with the Museum itself or Creationism in general (from their so-called scientific perspective). What the actor did outside of his performance in the video is really not the concern of the Museum or their leadership. What they are doing is publicly questioning his morals and values, deeming them less than satisfactory for public decency. That is unfair and hypocritical. He has done nothing wrong.

A quick visit to Eric Linden’s site (aka Adam), reveals that rather than being upset by the museum’s decision, he accuses left wing pressure groups of trying to shut down the Creation Museum by ‘outing’ him. He claims “people such as Julie Carr Smyth, feel it’s necessary to attack the Creation Museum in any way possible. Why? Maybe because they are right? I was hired as a actor, not a spokesperson!”

The Museum operators have created a scandal where none existed. That such a tenuous link between a small website and the museum has been blown up into such a controversy is rather shameful. The man’s actions outside of his performance in the video have done nothing to harm the museum. The museum and its operators should be ashamed for casting public scrutiny on a man who has done nothing aside from behaving and acting how he wished, which is the right of everyone.

Mentally deranged man lunges at Popemobile

Posted on by
Reply

I always thought any man who wears a pink T-shirt must undoubtedly be a little crazy. This belief was confirmed as I read a story concerning a 24 year old man, dressed in the flashy color, who attempted to lunge at the Popemobile. He managed to hang on for several seconds before being wrestled to the ground. Police say the man was mentally disturbed, and rather than trying to hurt Pope Benedict XVI, he merely wanted to draw attention to himself.

Well, duh! He was wearing a pink T-shirt for god’s sake; what other proof do you need? Equally surprising about this story was that the man was able to get so close to the Pope, especially considering security has tightened significantly since the attack of 9/11. Usually, the Pope travels in a vehicle with bullet proof glass, a measure taken after the attempted assassination of John Paul II in 1981. I suppose Vatican officials don’t have enough confidence in the divine to expect God to provide his own form of security to his earthly avatar. Their message: have faith, but for God’s sake, not too much!

On another comedic note, before his death, Pope John Paul II had asked the media not to refer to his vehicle as the ‘Popemobile’, which he felt was a rather derogatory term. Apparently, riding around in a see-through glass dome, looking not unlike a life-size snow glob, is cool, but its nomenclature isn’t. God and Popes are decidedly forbidden to possess a sense of humor.

Suspected terrorists watched too many action movies

Posted on by
Reply

As the plot thickens after the arrests of 4 men suspected of trying to blow up fuel tanks at JFK airport, a number of experts have come forward explaining their terrorist plot would not have had the desired effect they were seeking: the complete destruction of JFK Airport. At best, these men could have set off a dangerous blaze, though nothing that would have endangered the lives of JFK’s daily commuters.

If you’re new to the story, here’s the recap: four Trinidadian Muslims, of some advanced age, had begun surveillance work on the airport allegedly in an attempt to ignite and explode the giant fuel tanks, as well as the pipeline. Although this may certainly sound both impressive and frightening, according to most experts, producing anything more than a fire would have been next to impossible.

I can’t say I’m entirely surprised, considering the fact that many of the suspected terrorists had lived for quite a few decades in America. How else could they possibly think a simple fire or a small explosion could create the necessary chain reaction to destroy an entire airport? It’s conceivable that the plot had been devised while watching Die Hard 2, or some equally far-fetched action movie (although in this instance, they would probably have rooted for the bad guys). One has to wonder why, out of the many different violent fantasies they undoubtedly had, they picked that one. Presumably, they wanted a big show.

This act is yet another example of the murderous impulse of faith; it is no coincidence these men were counting on the righteous hand of God to punish those they considered to be infidels. So willing were they to accept this fantasy that they felt the arrival of a 5th member (in actuality an informant) was an act of God. It never occurred to them that their actions were wrong, evil, and disgusting. To them, there was no greater show of piety than the destruction of innocent human lives.

I’m glad none of these men took the time to read a physics book, or even just watch a few documentaries instead of the show 24. Religious fundamentalists are incapable of duplicating the refined works of science; instead, their violent sectarian minds can only use these tools as a blunt instrument of destruction. In this case, they engineered a terrorist plot out of the contrived writings of B-movie scripts. It then only seems fitting that the ‘good guys’ stopped them in time; one good cliché always deserves another.

Iran encourages temporary marriage licenses

Posted on by
Reply

For most Orthodox religions, sex is tricky business. They struggle so hard to suppress it, especially outside the confines of marriage, it’s a miracle that most of these people actually manage to reproduce. But each particular sect develops their own individual loop holes that allow for a little breathing space. In the case of Islam, ‘temporary’ marriages offer a solution for the lonely and sexually frustrated young Muslim.

Although the practice is still mostly shunned, there is resurgence in its popularity, now that Iran’s Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi openly encourages it. The move is motivated almost entirely by the growing political pressure coming from the country’s youth, who now make up over 50% of the population. Often too poor to afford houses and expensive dowries, young men under the age of 30 pine for the ability to relieve their sexual urges in a way that does not violate their religious traditions. Critics however argue that the practice is no better than prostitution, since the marriages sometimes last no more than a few hours, with a dowry being paid to the bride as part of the marriage contract.

Personally, I’ve never objected to prostitution; even if I did, it wouldn’t stop people from engaging in the world’s oldest profession. Why it should be illegal for two consenting adults to engage in an activity that is legal when it’s free is beyond me. Still, in this case, it seems to me nothing more than silly religious placating. Do any of these pious young men really think their God is so naïve as to be fooled by the intentions of the groom? One wonders how they reconcile the fact that a loving God, who forbids sex before marriage, would make the young life of any adolescent entirely focused on the idea. Such a tease!

All kidding aside, my concern lies with the poor women involved in these mut’ah, who may not get their fair shake in the transaction. It’s no surprise women are often victims in the unregulated and dangerous world of the sex trade. Would proper protection be used? How would they treated, if they were known to take active parts in these marriages? Would their lives be at risk?

This is but a small example of the conservative elements of Islam trying in vain to adapt to the growing needs of its practitioners. As much of the rest of the world enjoys the ability to engage in pre-marital sex without the danger of being imprisoned or punished, the Muslim religion continues to struggle with how to maintain its orthodox values amidst other competing ideologies. In the case of mut’ah, critics who insist the practice is nothing more than glorified prostitution are not wrong in their analysis. Although it may benefit young couples who want to experiment with sex, it will undoubtedly create a dangerous and possibly violent new sexual trade in a country that often considers women to be second class citizens.

Crippled by fear, UK schools strike events from history class

Posted on by
Reply

By now, we’ve all heard of cases where religion has tried to insert its alternative, often deleterious, truths into science classrooms and textbooks in the US. If this hasn’t confused students about the facts, it certainly has presented a perplexing message about how to uncover truths. On the side of evolution, we find an appeal to relentless observation and questioning, whereas on the side of creationism, we find an appeal to ignorance (ex: life is so complex, how can we possibly understand its origins without introducing a supernatural cause?). However, this time around, religion is rearing a different, quite divisive head in the UK.

Unlike what is transpiring in America, the topic of history is now the latest member of the list of things we can’t talk about civilly due to a dire need to appease all religions at once. According to Daily Mail, a recent government report uncovered a group of high-school teachers who instituted a self imposed ban on classroom discussions of the Holocaust of WWII, and the Crusades of the 11th Century. The decision was motivated out of fear that certain Muslim students would continue to, or begin expressing strong anti-Semitic views, potentially offending other students. These two topics were expressly omitted because they ‘would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques,’ said the report.

It’s never a surprise when religion interprets history in a way that portrays its faithful in a more favorable light than non-followers. Some would call it a perk for joining the club. But should a religious interpretation of events really override a secular discussion of the facts in a public classroom? For a school to stand down, sweeping these truly world-shaping events under the carpet, it does everyone an enormous disservice. Not only will these teens be more likely to harbor aggressive world views into adulthood, never quite working out their differences during their formative years, but being taught by a teacher who was afraid to share these important lessons will likely doom them, and perhaps many of us, to repeat history.

An appeal to reason

Posted on by
Reply

A comment appeared in one of my stories which deserves some attention, and I would like to take the opportunity not only to clarify my position on the matter, but also to address many of the points brought up in his arguments. I thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss what my opinions are concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, lest my audience assume I am one sided on the issue.

We’ll begin with the letter itself, which reads:

One side of the story isn’t it [referring to the comment I wrote on the video featuring ‘Mickey Mouse’ enticing children to violence]? The Israelis have their own programs that put out propaganda against the Arabs, Muslim or non [sic]. In areas of Palestine, where the Jews have illegally claimed possession of land, Jewish children are to go to school before Palestinian kids, and when the Palestinian kids head off to school, they and their families get ridiculed and have rocks thrown at them by the Jews living there.

They live through this every day, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY! The UN has put out many resolutions and many documents that ask for the removal of the Israelis from Palestinian territory, but it hasn’t happened in decades! DECADES! From 1955 to 1991 alone, there have been more than 60 UN resolutions against Israel due to it’s [sic] treatment of Palestinians and their territory. So much violence! Even the small things that Israel does, is unimaginable! The Palestinians get stuck in traffic for hours if Israelis want to move and use the roads. The Palestinians have to pay fees and fines to use their own roads and streets and this right to use part of their own infrastructure is determined by ISRAELI soldiers! They have to have papers and permits to travel, live, worship and shop in their OWN COUNTRY!

People need to realize who owns the news and what restrictions are on the news that is being fed to the mainstream public. The diplomats that go into Palestine come out shocked and once they try to shed light on what is really going on, they are declared anti-Semitic, and have to work hard to remove that association from themselves and just quietly back down from the issue. When Israel invaded Lebanon, just some months ago, and bombed innocent civilians and residential areas and UN buildings with their PRECISION MISSILES, what in the world were you people watching?! They precisely hit the right targets. There was a documentary on PBS not too long ago that claimed that the propaganda, Jews against Arabs and Arabs against Jews, was being taught to kids and there were shows out there trying to reduce this. When are people going to realize that when people in that country live in so much poverty and chaos and daily violence and disruption, why would these citizens have attacks and more violence on their minds, rather than keeping their kids and families safe and trying to live out each day at a time?

If everything was peachy keen in their own lives, why would anyone go against a peaceful neighbor? Why would they risk retaliations on themselves, from a much, much more powerful, organized and well equipped Israeli military force, if everything was fine? Palestine doesn’t have an army. Who would go mess with someone much more advanced and powerful and definitely economically richer, when they have families to think of? Some people, whose families have been lost and died in this chaotic, nonsensical violence, get really angry. They want to retaliate, because they have nothing to lose anymore. That’s a hard thing to understand. These children’s programs against one group or the other are everywhere in that region; in Israel, as well as Palestine.

Don’t just believe that there is only one side to the news you hear about the middle east. Most of it people don’t get to hear. Surely, everyone who thinks critically can understand and respect that. You hear of one Israeli death and it’s publicized with as much sympathy as possible. Name the person or soldiers and their family members. Showing their family members on national news. Showing their grief. When several Palestinians die, each day due to conflict with Israeli soldiers – these are just civilians I am talking about – they are mention briefly and told in a way that no one remembers or cares. In fact, more often than not, it leaves the viewer with the message that somehow, it was the fault of the civilians, everytime, everyday?

Obviously, Ash here is very passionate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He brings up a few points I would like to address, particularly in regards to the propaganda he was referring to. First, I would like to indicate that Ash did not condemn the video itself, and jumped straight to the fact that Israel has its own children’s program to indoctrinate them against Muslims. Even if that were true, it does not diminish the sheer horror and vileness of the program itself. The children’s show was designed not only to create anti-Semitism, but to entice the very young to violence. I feel sympathy to anyone who has such restrictions placed upon them. No doubt Palestinians must feel like second class citizens within their own home. But their struggle does not justify the brainwashing of little children, nor should anyone believe for an instant that the violent assaults made on Israeli citizens is somehow justified as a consequence. Violence is never the answer, and the impoverished and desperate conditions of the Palestinian people will never be advanced by such actions.

This brings me to the second point. Ash asked why anyone would attack a stronger, richer, and more organized country. As the video demonstrated, so long as you begin to indoctrinate people at an early age, you can hope for an endless supply of radical followers who are motivated not by self interest, but by blind hatred and martyrdom. Are there any secular suicide bombers? No. The reason is even people hurt and angry at the loss of their family members are hard-pressed to take their revenge out on the innocent. They may hurl stones, insults, or far worse at the military, but few would strap bombs to themselves and attack a group of teenagers at a roller disco. For this to occur, a powerful mix of religious indoctrination, xenophobia, and complete surrender to people of authority is required. Anger and resentment is not enough; their enemies must be perpetually dehumanized, while simultaneously convincing young recruits that they will be given a special place for themselves and their families in heaven.

This brings me to my third point; that the peace process is impossible, so long as both sides believe the conflict is religious in nature. Over the years, many secular countries have attempted to resolve the conflict by proposing a number of measures to establish an official Palestinian state, all of which failed, not because of the lack of interest on the part of the Palestinian or Israeli people, but because their leaders refused to make the necessary concession needed for peace. Palestinian leaders, heavily influenced by various mullahs, felt that allowing Jews to live on their holy lands was completely unacceptable, while extreme Zionists argued that their holy text gave them historical rights to control all of Palestine. Israel’s claim to Palestine, based primarily on the Bible, and on little or no archeological evidence, is erroneous. We cannot, however, turn the clock back, and forcing millions of Jews to leave the area would be disastrous. Religion created the problem, which is why it must be eliminated from the discussion.

The level of indoctrination of Jews in Israel is light compared to the religious hatred inculcated upon the Palestinians by extremist religious organizations, such as Hamas. Still, Israeli politicians use fear to control their population into adopting measures that are far more conservative than they would otherwise hope for; a majority of Israelis want peace with Palestine, and support the idea of it becoming its own country. However, they simultaneously fear that such a move would create a totalitarian theocracy bent on their destruction, a fear that is not altogether unjustified.

So long as religious zealots on either side continue to use the conflict to further their own political and religious goals, Palestine will continue to be a miserable place to live. A strong secular movement must be put in place to eliminate the fear mongering and extremism each respective religion ensconces. It is my belief that such a move would drastically improve the situation for both Palestinians and Israelis, and would be a historical achievement in the peace process in the Middle East

Church reinstates Islamic department

Posted on by
Reply

Tensions are running high between the Islamic world and the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI. In order to avoid further alienation, and to improve relations between the two faiths, the Pope has re-instated the Vatican’s Islam department, according to BBCNEWS.com. The move means everyone can breathe a sigh of relief, since he will now have a little more perspective as to the sensibilities and grievances of the fragile and easily offended Islamic faith.

Although I do applaud the move for its sheer strategic purposes, I can’t help but feel the department itself is a testament to the need to placate a faith that has become dangerously reactive. It seems these days that everyone is walking on eggshells, lest we invoke the ire and anger of the Muslim world. The realities of such actions are clear and obvious; many fundamentalists are not afraid to resort to extreme violence at any provocation, and as such the Vatican has re-instated the one department that has the power to directly advise the Pope on the matter (probably reminding him that the two faiths have been at each others throats for a long time, and quoting any manuscripts from past eras is bound to contain anti-Muslim rhetoric).

Why can religions make the privileged claim that their philosophies and beliefs are beyond questioning and reproach? Why are we all muzzled or browbeaten when any word of protest is uttered? Are religions really that frightened of opposition? You would think their own aspirations to being the ultimate and universal truth would make them immune from the cries of others. Why should they care what we think if they alone hold a privileged place in heaven?

On the other hand, the Pope should be the last person to throw rocks, considering he lives in the world’s biggest glass house. Perhaps he has recognized that the last thing the fractured and continually waning power of his institution needs is a long drawn out religious fight. In either case, let us hope the department can keep Ratzinger from putting his holy foot in his saintly mouth.

And the title of “Second Worst Museum” goes to…

Posted on by
Reply

Last week I wrote an article featuring the completion of the Creation Museum in Petersberg, Kentucky, which is opening today. However, there is another museum, in Roswell, New Mexico that ranks perhaps as the second most credulous institution in America, and a recent article on CBC.ca prompted me to write a bit about it.

As far as mythology is concerned, it’s hard to beat the Roswell story. In 1947, a farmer claimed to have discovered a crash site containing ‘odd looking metal fragments’. The government announced the craft was indeed an unidentified flying object, but soon retracted their statement, explaining instead that the craft had been a weather balloon. Adding to the conspiracy, 8 years later the US military established an airbase nearby, fueling claims that some sort of cover-up was occurring.

Roswell has since become a huge tourist attraction, centered almost entirely on the mythology of an alien crash-landing. In 1992, the rather silly ‘International UFO Museum and Research Center’ opened to the general public. The museum, soft on facts and heavy on theory, features a messy array of ‘artist rendered’ paintings, drawings, and testimonials of UFO sightings. Anyone who has not bought the conspiracy theory is therefore instantly bored, as they are introduced to sketches of pale gray humanoids with almond shaped eyes; a vision so paltry and tired one wonders how much imagination went into such a creation.

The fact that a museum of a non-events exists in the first place is a sad testament to our credulity, and shows that it is not only religion that can hold sway to our irrational impulses. Even if an alien craft had landed, what sort of proof can the museum offer that is of any scientific merit? Their only research is into testimonials of abductees, all of which recount a cookie-cutter story of alien incompetence and obsession with sexual probing.

With the future opening of a theme park, Roswell’s tourist industry will no doubt boom, attracting more droves to the silly and laughably unscientific museum. Although admittedly it may cause no real harm to visit such a place, I shudder at the fact human beings allow themselves to be fooled so easily. Even if an alien vessel had landed there, how much information on the event could this place really report? What lessons can it hope to inculcate? Anyone interested in the least educational tour possible, once they are finished visiting the museum of lies, should make a stop here. Otherwise, stay clear.

Just whose God are we debating anyway?

Posted on by
Reply

Debating God is tough work. For starters, in most circumstances, the audience is not on your side. Agnostics and atheists are the minority in a country where the population describes itself as either religious or very religious. Secondly, anyone debating against the existence of God seems to have the difficult task of trying to disprove the idea, rather than rightly asking any of the claimants for proof. Finally, the last difficulty is the fact that as a general concept, ‘God’ is so loosely defined that any theist can easily wiggle out of tough theological questions.

The Audience is Not on Your Side

Any sports team will tell you how helpful it is to have home field advantage. There’s a palpable feeling in the air, a raw energy that can be drawn. So, undoubtedly, having the audience on your side is a great help. Sadly, support for the views of atheism is placid at best, hostile at worst. Though most Americans are taught that religious tolerance is a hallmark of good citizenry, it seems the same attitude does not apply when having no religious feelings whatsoever. In fact, when asked who they would least likely vote for as electoral candidates, atheists finished dead last in terms of minorities. Clearly, we aren’t wanted.

Although I won’t try and make any excuses for poor debaters having been unable to defend their points accurately, there is nevertheless a sense of hostility in the air as one tries to debate against the existence of a higher power. One gets the feeling such ideas are not very welcome, and such a debater is not likely to win any popularity contest. As a result, although there may be many individuals capable of defending the views of atheism, the reality is the expression of such views often make one terribly unpopular; even despised.

The Difficulties in Proving a Negative

Anyone with a scientific background will tell you any attempt to disprove a negative is a futile effort, not only because of the infinite amount of things that would need disproving, but also because the claim does not first offer the possibility of falsifiability. If I make a claim that an invisible, weightless dragon is in my garage (a favorite example from the late Carl Sagan), any attempts to disprove its existence will be met not only with resistance on my part, but also by the implacable and insoluble nature of my claim. Any claim made without evidence is baseless, and should be disproved without evidence. Unfortunately, with ideas as old and entrenched as gods, the weight of evidence is not physical, but rather historical; we’ve believed in gods for a long time, therefore, the argument follows, surely we couldn’t have been wrong for so long, could we?

Yes, surely we have been wrong about a lot of things throughout our comparatively short stint here on Earth. Historical claims, at best, demonstrate there is an odd tendency for humans to be religious, and at worst demonstrate, like old theories on what ‘stuff’ was made of, or how the Cosmos operated, they almost always start out by being terribly wrong.

Theologians Use Ever Varying Concepts of God

Luckily, in most circumstances, most of the time, debates remain fairly civil, and unless dealing with a radical, can be very constructive. But in general the three problems outlined above make debating God an often futile effort; in particular, the broad and all-encompassing definition of ‘God’ make the act of debate seem pointless. If I am engaging in an argument over the existence of God with a Christian, just whose god are we debating anyway? Am I debating about God the all loving Creator, the God turned Man, or a ‘Prime Mover’? Is it possible perhaps my opponent is himself unsure?

Let us suppose for instance a debate was going on. I would begin by making a case that the illusion of design is primarily responsible for our idea of God. We are easily fooled by the apparent intricacies of the human eye, or the vastness of the Cosmos, and attribute these to be the work of some divine planner. We’ve been doing this for some time; long before we had any real way of understanding complex forces without the use of an outside influence. If nature can satisfactorily be explained without a designer, then there is no need to include one in our hypothesis about how the universe operates. Even if we do run into problems, or gaps in our information (such as the origin of life or the universe itself), we cannot infer it is appropriate to interject a ‘God in the gaps’ to satisfy our incomplete view. The notion the universe could have begun (and this is a tricky word, since time itself is not a constant, and as such, the idea of a beginning is not the adequate picture) without an outside cause works based on the information we already have at hand. Even if it did not, our inability to comprehend why there should be a universe instead of nothing does not imply a creator.

My opponent might at this point argue that although it may not prove the existence of a creator, it is certainly is not completely negated either. Fair enough. I would be on shaky ground if I tried to argue that the universe functioning without the need for interference from a God instantaneously disproves the hypothesis. The ‘God’ that atheists will always be incapable of disproving is isolable, immune to any testing or verification specifically because the concept demands ‘he’ is. Such a deity is outside of reality and the universe, and as such, is not a relevant player in it. Although the theologians, apologetics, and other religious defenders argue in favor of such a concept, they do so out of the necessity to first possess a concept of God that is irrefutable to their own selective concepts upon. However, theologians are not interested in a God that is completely outside the universe; they require a deity who interferes with human affairs, who takes sides, who offers rewards, who can produce a son, or offer divine revelation to the few who can hear them. This God is not insoluble, since we can at least measure the impact ‘he’ supposedly has in human affairs.

Regardless of his tactic to prove the universe could contain a God of some kind, why would my opponent think the concept he has outlined in any way resembles the God he believes in? Why is it that apologetics engage in heated discussions about the existence of God fail to argue properly in the God as they so effortlessly define him as being Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent? Of course I cannot prove the non-existance of God as an entity who exists completely outside our realm of experience, but so what? That definition in no way resembles God as he is described in the Bible, or the Qur’an, or any other ‘holy’ book for that matter.

The recent debate of Sharpton vs Hitchens is a good example of this; Reverand Sharpton argued that Hitchens did not disprove God in his book, God is not Great, but rather mentioned only the evil and wrong-doings of organized religion. What does Al Sharpton believe? Well, his comment about Mitt Romney (tongue in cheek of course), who is a Mormon, not believing in the right God obviously demonstrates that he has a solid idea of what this God is, and certainly this God is the one contained within the texts that Hitchens so venomously attacks.

Sharpton, like all religious people, relies on the insoluble God to debate with atheists, even though, when the debate is broken down, the real argument is rather about an anthropomorphized and active God than the improvable one. We can measure such a God, and we can certainly refute it. The simple fact is prayer, for instance, has been shown to do absolutely nothing in double blind studies (in fact, people who were sick and knew they were being prayed for did worse). However, so long as any debater falls back on the insoluble concept of God (related more to deism than to theism), then the atheist is effectively wasting his time. He will never be able to disprove this idea, anymore than he can disprove fairies or goblins.

The miracle sex changing bird

Posted on by
Reply

I was both amused and stunned at the news this morning of a hen spontaneously changing gender into a rooster in Calcutta, India. The owner claims the chicken had been laying eggs but for a few days ago, when it suddenly stopped and began displaying male characteristics. The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science wrote a report in 2000 about how such changes can sometimes occur in nature, albeit rarely.

What makes this story all the more funny is that the owner, one Haziruddin Mohammad, has refused to hand the bird over for study, claiming the change is a miracle. Well, anyone who owns a piece of a supposed miracle is not about to part with such a prize, especially in India, where a man can do quite well for himself in terms of finances and respect for owning such a unique animal. Still, you have to be somewhat unimpressed if this feat was somehow meant as a display of God’s ‘awesome’ powers; if he’s so omnipotent, couldn’t he make a mountain turn into a giant pencil or something equally outrageous? Instead, we get a rooster that used to be a hen. All that means is that the poor owner now has to look elsewhere for a good breakfast!

Creation Museum set to open

Posted on by
Reply

If you’re unfamiliar with Ken Ham, the relatively famous (or is it infamous) creationist, you will know him soon enough. Ham is part creator and director of a new Mecca for young earth creationists, a 27 million dollar facility designed by Patrick Marsh, whose visual flair helped engineer the Jaws and King Kong attractions at Universal theme park. The museum hopes to attract a quarter million visitors each year, and the sophistication and glitz of the place promises to attract droves of the faithful to witness the serene and strange sights of animatronic humans gleefully living side by side with lumbering, fresh faced dinosaurs. The site is a testament to the unyielding efforts of creationists to spread the notion that the Bible is THE authoritative book on everything, including ancient history, cosmology, and (as this museum tries to show) pre-history. But the museum does more than simply assert the age of the earth as a paltry 6000 years; as visitors take a tour of the history of mankind, from its fall from Eden, to Noah’s flood, they finally come upon the modern age, displayed as a decadent secular world that has abandoned the values of God and church. The final image is of a young man leering over his computer, supposedly looking at pornography (the ultimate decadence it seems if one is Christian).

What strikes one as odd is the dichotomous nature of the museum, which seems to be both disdainful of science and progress while simultaneously passing itself off as scientific. Alternative explanations to evolution are everywhere: the chameleon does not change color as a function of natural selection; instead, it does so to apparently communicate with others, and to show off its mood. The museum even endorses its own highly specific version of evolution, arguing that animals are evolutionary offshoots of the animals rescued in Noah’s flood.

But the museum’s sometimes dazzling displays and sophistication gloss over the shallow and highly misleading interpretation of historical events by creationists. Gone are the rigors of scientific inquiry in favor of biblical pandering. Unlike a real museum, which houses researchers espoused to uncovering the truths about the natural world, this new Biblical literalist ‘Mecca’ ensconces religious propagandists intent on dismantling history and science as we know it.

There has been a great deal of protest in the US over the opening of the museum, which has somewhat delayed the previous scheduled opening. Alas, the effort is both in vain and counter-productive; regardless of the protestations of scientists and secularists, creationists simply refuse to accept any theory that undermines their religious convictions. Strong opposition only enforces the idea that they are being unfairly prosecuted by intellectual ‘fascism’. The museum is not the cause of scientific ignorance in America; rather it is a symptom of it. Attempting to shut it down is tantamount to putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.

As creationists further remove themselves from the inconveniences of reality, they will continue to build whatever institutions they can to house their antiquated beliefs. A museum is perhaps only the start for them. Their ambitions extend far further. But the intellectual havoc they create is not impossible to combat, nor is it necessarily permanent. The will of the general American public has to push strongly for scientific education. Sadly, the average citizen is interested less in the pursuit of truth and more in the pursuit of happiness, which the museum undoubtedly fulfills for some. The way to fight this museum will therefore come not from protest, or even boycott, but from a campaign on the part of secularists of equal and greater vigor to ensure we do not become complacent and uncaring about the importance of science and reason, lest it become hijacked by those concerned less with the truth of the natural world, but rather by Bronze Age myths.

Death before naptime

Posted on by
Reply

I’m no fan of tyrannical dictators, particularly men like Saddam Hussein, even so, I can’t help but feel a certain regret that Iraq is now far worse in his absence. A scary story appeared on CNN.com today concerning the growing trend of violent rhetoric being expressed by kindergartners in Iraqi schools. One child was quoted as saying “I’m going to bomb, bomb, bomb the school with everybody in it,” while another claimed her father had given her a machine gun and had inducted her in the liberation army.
The problem is not merely that the Bush Administration horribly mismanaged the war; the very fact the conflict started in the first place only demonstrates how obviously distorted the perception of war in America is compared to its gruesome reality. For many Americans, they see conflict as the act of renewal; their very nation was founded on the principle of dissent and revolution. But the war that lead to their independence was nothing like modern wars, fought not on battlefields but in streets, libraries, and playgrounds. The children born and raised in this turbulent and violent environment become corrupted by it.

The victims of war, when they grow up, become the perpetrators of the same violence inflicted upon them. The option of peaceful coexistence is a concept lost amongst the sound of gunfire and smoke. Although it isn’t too late to turn the tide in this conflict, it seems as Americans increasingly demand to pull out of the mess they created, the opportunity to rectify their error becomes completely lost. What matters now is not whether the war was justified or not; the children of Iraq do not need vitriolic polemics. Instead, what they need now more then ever is the support of the very nation who launched them down this dark path. The question remains: will Americans own up to their mistake and fix it, or retreat, leaving these poor children to face the prospect of death before naptime?

Standoff in mosque

Posted on by
Reply

More trouble in Pakistan, as Islamic fundamentalists kidnapped two police officers and are holding them hostage in a mosque in Islamabad, asking that the government impose ‘Islamic rule’ in the country. The standoff continues, as the military is hesitant to take any action for fear of creating a volatile situation in a country that seems poised to become another fundamentalist state.

The rhetoric that spews out of the poorly educated mouths of these so-called students is an obvious sign that negotiations are not going well; they claim no responsibility for the crime of kidnapping, and instead accuse the government of being kidnappers themselves. How they see the logic in this is beyond me. It only illustrates negotiation is a useless endeavor with fundamentalists; they are interested only in the Islamification of Pakistan (and eventually the world), and any successful negotiation is simply a tactic on their part to allow more time for them to consolidate their power and plan their next move.

Pakistan is in a bad situation. On one side, if they intervene with the military, it may create even more attention and support to the cause of Islamic fundamentalists (which is highly undesirable for a nation with the atom bomb), on the other they cannot hope to meet any demand on the part of the kidnappers. It’s next to impossible to negotiate with individuals so deluded that they believe the kidnapping and (most likely eventual) murder of two innocent men is but a few broken eggshells on the way to heaven.

Religious statue damaged by lightning

Posted on by
1

It seems a little ironic that a statue in Golden Colorado, recently damaged by a bolt of lightning, may not be covered by the church’s insurance due to it being considered an ‘act of God’. The fact, however, that it hit and destroyed a holy symbol and doesn’t appear to unnerve any of the nuns there seems pretty weird to me. Bleeding statues and you have a miracle; a lightning bolt severs the hand of a beloved symbol, and everyone keeps mysteriously silent on the issue. Are they a bit scared they might have done something wrong to anger their god?

Personally, I’ve always found that phrase ‘act of God’ to be the magical words that keeps the insurance companies in business. I mean, isn’t God supposed to be the divine hand behind everything? Doesn’t he work in mysterious ways? Who are they to refuse to pay simply because they have a theological interpretation of a natural disaster?

In any case, I’m sure this won’t be talked about as a great work of miracle prowess. Just seems like what you would expect to happen if lightning bolts obeyed the laws of physics rather than the command of some andro-centric deity, unless of course, those nuns were up to some evil shenanigans.